Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: Skobud Date: Jan 7, 2011 6:07am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: A Transcoding Question

You will not lose quality going lossless to lossless. All of the pieces of the puzzle will remain intact each and every time you convert or covert back.

Its just like every time you convert or transcode lossy you will lose quality. So, even if you try to go 128k to 192k to increase quality it will not happen. The best you will see out of an MP3 is the initial quality.

I know you have been around so you probably already know/use Traders Little Helper. It really is the best and easiest for whatever type of conversions you are making.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Jan 7, 2011 10:12am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: A Transcoding Question

Hey SB--I are an idiot in this domain, and never do any DL'ing per se (ie, I "get" SHNs/FLACs, use TLH to turn to WAV, etc., etc), so in essence, all the discussion of "bit rate" is beside the pt, right? IE, I see the discussions here, and ignore them, and I see the listing on things for DL'ing saying "24 bit" or whatever (I know that's wrong in this context, but you get the idea), AND that's the only place it would come up, right?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Skobud Date: Jan 7, 2011 11:49am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: A Transcoding Question

Hey WT -

The "bit rate" i think you are talking about has to do with MP3's and their quality. When you talk about 16 or 24 bit you are really talking about "bit depth" which is different. So, pardon me while I nerd out here and try to explain this to the best of my knowledge...

When you talk about bit rate as in 16 or 24 bit remasters or recordings, you are talking about bit depth or the number of bits you have to capture the audio. Try to think of it as levels on an EQ. 16 bit has 65536 levels

Your sample rate is a function of time which actually equates to the number of times the audio is sampled per second. The standard for CD’s is 44.1 kHz, or 44,100 slices or samples every second.

So now, using both of these pieces of info you can see how it relates to size and resolution of the actual recording you are hearing. That means a 16 bit recording has:

65,536 levels with 44100 slices of audio sampled every second

Now every bit of greater resoloution doubles the number of levels. So then a 24 bit recording at 96kHz would have something like 16 million levels sampled 96000 times a second.

My understanding is that MP3's store the sound as amplitude over frequency, whereas a normal WAV has it as amplitude over time. So what that means is that there really is no “bit depth” on an MP3. There is only a sample rate which equivocates to the bit rate or number of bits processed per unit of time. Higher the bit rate obviously means higher quality.

What does all of this mean? Think of it as kinda like HD vs. regular TV. Higher resoloution equals higher quality and larger file size. IMO, the difference between 16 and 24 bit is negligable on your average stereo system. Both are lossless, its just that 24 bit has more levels and is sampled many more times which leads to a much bigger file size and much greater resolution.

Mp3's are a different world. Encoder/Decoders use different algorythms for compression and Im still not so clear on the exact relationship between bit rate and sample rate.

Putting it simply, think of a 24 bit recording as having a sample rate og 96000k and a 16 bit recording as having a sample rate of 44100k. Quality and size of the file vary accordingly.

Audiophiles, feel free to add/correct/clarify or whatever..This is just my attempt at a 10 cent explination. Peace

This post was modified by Skobud on 2011-01-07 19:49:13

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Jan 7, 2011 1:37pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: A Transcoding Question

Thx--I do understand the fundamental pts, as it relates to audio recordings as well, with which I had some experience.

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)